Did you recently rush to buy a new vehicle before tariff-related price hikes? A reporter is looking to speak with shoppers who felt pressure to act quickly due to expected cost increases; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com for more details by 4/24.

Toyota Sequoia vs Chevy Suburban, Chevy Tahoe, GMC Yukon XL

13

Comments

  • lambertlambert Member Posts: 1
    I have owned 3 Land Cruisers(95,97,02) which I purchased new and have had no regrets. I have owned 2 Suburban 2500 4wdr (99,2001)and also enjoyed owning them. Off road capability and build quality I would give the nod to the Toyotas. For highway driving,power(no comparison)towing and interior space I would go with the Suburbans.
     I am looking to buy a new SUV next month and I am considering the Seqouia,I am not to fond of the current Land Cruiser styling and the Seqouia is larger which I like. I will also be pricing a 2500 4 wheel drive Suburban. Tuff decissions.
  • wildwillswildwills Member Posts: 5
    "The Suburbans are a bargain right now....but you have to wonder how they sell'em so cheap? They ain't in the business to lose money on these things so they are still making something...so why is their cost so low??"

    That's an easy one to answer. It has to do with production capacity. GM adopted Just-In-Time (JIT) practices from Toyota and were able to significantly reduce their overhead costs, mainly in the way of inventory for the production line. Parts are now delivered as they are needed. Plus GM's purchasing division is notorious for getting rock-botton transportation costs.

    Also consider that GM is the largest vehicle manufacturer in the world. This allows GM to offer the higher incentives and cash back values. To make up that lost revenue, GM just has to sell a few more vehicles to offset the cost. It's called a Break Even Sales Point. While GM is till losing some revenue with the higher incentives, ther're able to recoup much more of it than the other manufacturer.

    It due to GM having a lower Break Even point that will enable GM to lead the "incentive war" and come out on top. Just take any Pricing Course and you'll see what I'm talking about.
  • fanman8fanman8 Member Posts: 65
    G.M. has been manufacturing Humvees for the military. They can't keep up with production and they get $50,000 for each one of them. That amounts to a tidy sum for G.M. It should be no surprise that G.M has ample assets from their military sales of Humvees given that they are unable to meet current demands for the military. As long as the war in Iraq puts increased demand on Humvees, I would expect deals should be had on many G.M. product lines.
  • tasillotasillo Member Posts: 51
    Unless you plan on driving your new SUV for the next 10+ years, you cannot argue with the Toyota's resale. I happen to be a big Suburban (and Expedition) fan as they are great trucks and that is after many miles of direct experience. However, 3 years later they are worthless! A $50K (sticker) Z71 Sub will be worth about $17K (consult auto lease guide) while the Toyota will command about $25k. Certainly you can buy the Sub for 10K off sticker vs. 5K for the Toyota, however you still come out ahead on the Sequoia. Also, my GM trucks while basically reliable nickel and dimed me to death (4 sets of brake rotors in 85K miles).

    My brothers Expedition was similar. $42K new, $15K 4 years and 75K miles later.

    As they say, "you pays your money and you's take your choice"!
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    JD Power just came out with the top 3 models in '04 for each segment:

    2004 Initial Quality Study

    Steve, Host
  • wildwillswildwills Member Posts: 5
    You brought up something I have noticed among most car manufacturers... that being increased totor/brake wear on both Japanese makes and domestics. Most manufacturers have gone over to rotors at all 4 wheels now, you typically don't find rear drums anymore unless its a 250 series or higher. Rotors too nowadays are throw-aways, meaning they should be replaced each time you get new brake pads.

    On my wife's Explorer, I've changed the brakes myself and have had to replace the rotors each time. Fords are especially notorious for running undersized rotos and brake pads. I see a trend on most domestics to go with smaller rotors versurs larger ones like on European imports. It boils down to simple physics, the more mass your vehicle has, the more momentum is has, the more heat generated and the harder it is still stop. Common sense should bear out that full-size SUV's should have at minimum 10 inch rotors all the way around. Or at least vented rotors for improved heat dispersion.

    But resale value? It's not really a consideration for when I purchase a vehicle. I look strictly at reliability and ease of maintenance (can I work on the vehicle myself). Plus my overall impression with the vehicle after test driving. I'm a grease monkey at heart and don't mind doing my own automotive work as long as I have the time and know-how. But I have to concede, Toyota's quality outpaces domestic standards. That's what you get by going over to a "Lego" built vehicle with very little variations. GM is definitely heading that way (like Toyota) on their production line. Sooner or later GM will catch up, which will drive the other domestics to follow suit. And that means a better end roduct for all us consumers. But that's my opinion based on much academic research as a Quality guru.
  • tasillotasillo Member Posts: 51
    The rotor wear/quality issue seems prevalent among all domestic and japanese brands. I believe it is both a size of rotor (ability to dissipate heat) and quality of the metal used. All my GM, Ford and especially Chrysler products go through rotors in 20K miles or less. My BMW 740 however (also a heavy and fast car) has no problems with rotors. BMW does not allow cutting or maching of rotors however so when it's time for pads, it's time for rotors as well (at $100 ea.). From my perspective, this is where the domestic mfg. could really close a gap with the Europeans. Invest in better quality and larger rotors, 4 piston calipers and quality components and customer satisfaction will improve as brakes are a common thread of complaint for GM, Ford and Chrysler.
  • msmith1msmith1 Member Posts: 2
    Initially bought a 2002 Sequoia Limited, and traded my car in for a 2003 Yukon SLT. The reason was that we were going to have a third child.

    Observations:

    Sequoia:

    Pros:

    - Great fit and finish
    - Quality interior materials
    - Quiet motor
    - More room behind third seat than Yukon
    - Third seats slide back and forth to add room

    Cons:

    - Needs more power, a lot more power!
    - Very large turning radius
    - Poor visibility out the back
    - Dives into turns like a 65 Buick
    - Second row seats do not fold flat to the floor, only flip up. Then you must manually secure in place with a strap
    - Third row seats very heavy and difficult to remove
    - Rear power window requires that you either have the keyfob in hand or roll down using the button prior to accessing.
    - Feature set less than would expect for this vehicle
    - Experienced terrible mileage (usually 12.5 to 13.0) in town.

    Yukon

    Pros

    - Good power and pulls trailers well
    - Many features such as XM radio that are not available on Sequoia
    - Tight turning radius
    - Great visibility
    - Good highway manners and very quiet
    - Seats fold flat very easy, with headrests moving out of the way automatically.
    - Third row easy to remove.
    - Average of 15 mpg in town

    Cons

    - Interior/exterior fit and finish is pathetic, I mean patheetic.
    - Interior materials not up to par with Sequoia
    - Not as good resale value as Sequoia

    We decided not to have the third child, and when deciding on which vehicle to keep, we chose the Yukon and traded the Sequoia.
  • petro33petro33 Member Posts: 192
    Interesting observation on your pros and cons. I have to agree with your issues on seq second row of seats. The need to tumble forward and strap down and resulting access to the back is troublesome. BUT I disagree on power issue, now maby if you are towing something over 6,000 lbs you might not be able to go 55 up steep hills, but I would take the secure smooth running motor of the seq over the Yukon and the potential repair issues over time.

    Milage is a minor price to pay for engine reliability. Plus with kids you may see the shoddy interior of the Yukon detroiate faster that the seq.

    However I understand that fold down second seat issue and the difficult third row of seats to take out. I don't do either very much so it was not a factor in my decision.

    You can also use the key in the lock in the rear door to roll the window down! What other "back window down options" do you want?

    I use large fish eye mirrors on both sides and it gives me perfect visibility.

    I would prefer that the seq had the dissapering seat feature and easier to remove third row feature.

    Good luck with your new vehicle, I hope yours is one that stands up to the test of time. I do like the way it looks!!!
  • kcflyerkcflyer Member Posts: 78
    I noticed that caddilac has a new escalade due out as an 06. Assuming they make the obvious move to add a disappearing third row seat I'm curious to see if a new Tahoe/Suburban will arrive at the same time. Has anyone heard anything? Same question for a redesigned Sequoia.
  • raymurraymur Member Posts: 29
    Anyone who would trade a 2 year old Sequoia for a "you got conned" SLT, is either lying about owning a Sequoia or should have his (or hers) head examined. There's a reason GM is offering $5000.00 off these vehicles and it ain't because they are in hot demand.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Has anyone brought up the fact that the Toyota Sequoia is a much worse polluter than the Suburban? The Toyota V8 engines have a long way to go to be as clean as the GM V8 engines. The Sequoia along with the Land Cruiser/LX470 are still in the top 5 worst polluters on the Planet..

    http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Smart move to keep the Yukon. I would never trade my Suburban for a Sequoia. They don't have as much room and get worse mileage and pollute the air worse.
  • msmith1msmith1 Member Posts: 2
    I may not have been clear on the trades from your post. I owned both at the same time. First bought the 2002 Sequoia and then bought the 2003 Yukon. When we decided to trade in one of the vehicles, we felt, for us, the Yukon met our needs better. Traded in the Sequoia on a Cayenne S.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    That is a step up for sure. I would love to have a Cayenne. I don't spend enough time on the road to justify that much of a vehicle.
  • gwdsequoiagwdsequoia Member Posts: 4
    I am not sure of the criteria that a car company utilizes when they decide whether or not to issue a Technical Service Bulletin (TSB), but in my mind it's a behind the scenes admission of a problem. Nonetheless, it's designed to assist service technicians in resolving potential problems. The more TSBs a model has been issued, the more problems. End of story.

    Let's take a look at the # of TSBs issued by GM and Toyo for model years '03/'04:

    2003: Toyo issued 6 TSBs, GMC issued 112
    2004 (so far): Toyo issued 3 TSBs, GMC issued 64 TSBs

    Just look that the numbers. Toyo has issued 9 total TSBs for the Sequoia and GMC has issued 176 TSBs!!!

    Personally, I weigh data like this much more heavily than I do for JD Power's customer satisfaction survey.
  • gkatz1gkatz1 Member Posts: 296
    I have total access to all TSB's for my 2004 Sequoia and there are 24. Granted there are some really minor things in there but nevertheless, there are more than three. The latest was this month and regarded windshield wiper cleaning (real serious, hehe)
  • gwdsequoiagwdsequoia Member Posts: 4
    I referenced the following site: http://www.mycarstats.com

    This link only shows 3 TSBs for the 2004 model. If you've got a more updated link, I'd appreciate it!
  • gkatz1gkatz1 Member Posts: 296
    I can't reference the site here because it is a competitor. Your site probably only lists significant TSB's while mine lists all of them. I would imagine, however, that your numbers comparison is fairly consistant. Don't forget though GM has a lot more variations in models than does Toyota.
  • gwdsequoiagwdsequoia Member Posts: 4
    ...from the Nation Highway Traffic Safety Administration website: http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/tsb/tsbsearch.cfm

    2004 Toyo Sequoia (dates from 8/19/03 to 5/31/04): 6 TSBs
    2003 Toyo Sequoia (dates from 3/05/03 to 5/31/04): 16 TSBs

    2004 GMC Yukon (dates from 1/01/03 to 1/01/04): 104 TSBs
    2003 GMC Yukon (dates from 5/01/02 to 1/01/04): 166 TSBs

    2004 Chevy Tahoe (dates from 1/01/03 to 1/01/04): 101 TSBs
    2003 Chevy Tahoe (dates from 1/01/02 to 1/01/04): 157 TSBs

    Whether or not one of the two sites that I've quoted are 100% correct, I think gkatz1 and I do agree in theory that the Toyota's dependability, as compared to the GMC and their variants, is far superior.

    With the GMCs you can save about 10% off of the Sequoia's price tag, but then you have to deal with 10 times or more the amount of problems with it. To me it's a no-brainer.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Drawing the conclusion from your handle. I would say you are not unbiased. My experience with Toyota over the years is just the opposite, very poor quality vehicles. A PU and a Land Cruiser, were a constant source of trouble. My current Suburban a 1999 model is near perfect after 6 years. One slight exhaust leak and the trip odometer replaced. I wasted the $1100 on an extended warranty.
  • tooheeldrivetooheeldrive Member Posts: 17
    All Sequoia's meet 50 state ULEV standards and get better city and combined mileage than the current 4WD GM Suburbans. Better crash test scores too. Very interesting link, thanks, gagrice. Rumor has it that the 2005 Sequoia will get 16 city and 20 hwy and will have 45 more horses (285).
  • shieattshieatt Member Posts: 75
    I think the assumption that if there are 10 times as many TSBs that you have to deal with 10 times or more the amount of problems is some pretty faulty logic. As one poster pointed out, many, if not the majority, of TSBs are are things that do not translate into owner issues and are extremely minor in nature, and the GMC trucks also offer many more variants... e.g., four different powertrains vs. Sequoia's one.

    We now have 24K miles on our Suburban and not a single problem yet... in spite of hundreds of TSBs. I personally would still tend to believe that Toyota has an edge over GMC in terms of quality, but IMO the difference is not material and certainly doesn't justify the premium if otherwise GMC has a more capable, better looking and feature laden vehicle. While of course looks are subjective, as to capability (greater towing capacity even with base powertrain, more cargo capacity, more power even with base engine) and available features (XM radio, programmable driver center w/trip computer, memory seats, etc., tri-zone climate control, 2nd row captains chairs, OnStar, nav system (on Denali), Autoride suspension, etc.), Suburban/YXL has the Sequoia beat easily.

    Besides, as I've mentioned before, the Suburban/YXL/Escalade are in a class alone in terms of ability to carry 6+ passengers and cargo... for those of us with such needs, there is no comparison.
  • petro33petro33 Member Posts: 192
    good points, Your statements make it clearer than ever that there is no one SUV for everyone. Weigh all the options and the tasks you wish the vehicle to perform and pick the one that best suites your needs!!
  • texasmomtexasmom Member Posts: 114
    Need an SUV w/ as much safety, space, features as possible but would like to stay in the under 45K price range. Edmunds' editors rank Chev Tahoe/GMC Yukon first in the large SUV under 45K category, giving Toyota Sequoia an honorable mention. What I don't understand is why the editors' score for the Tahoe/Yukon is 7.3 but is higher (8.3) for the Sequoia.
     
    For both vehicles the consumer scores are comparable (9.0 for Tahoe/Yukon and 9.1 for Sequoia).

    I'm confused about the editor's score being lower for their first choice vehicle; but, even more than that, I'm confused about the biggest pros and cons of the two.

    Finally, I keep hearing that people who have owned Suburbans and Lincolns are VERY faithful owners and "get addicted" to their vehicles. I've talked to some of them and they seem almost sheepish about their need to continue to owning these trucks. But they love them. So, they are on my list, too.

    HELP !! Thanks!
  • mark1mark1 Member Posts: 5
    The reality is that this is an individual choice: some need towing, some passenger room, some have specific outer size requirements (to fit in a garage or parking space), etc. I, for one, found the Sequoia the most polished bang for the buck (or 50k, as the case may be). I was impressed that, for a vehicle its size, the Sequoia drove not all that differently than one much smaller. Neither the Armada, Expedition nor, heaven help me, the Yukon drove (in my humble opinion) anything nearly as polished and smooth. That’s what did it for me.
  • beach15beach15 Member Posts: 1,305
    Finally, some pics of the next generation Tahoe/Yukon! Look significantly different, especially from the b-pillar back. Taller and flatter seem to be what I get out of it.

    http://www.thecarconnection.com/index.asp?n=178&sid=178&a- rticle=7703

    Some people are saying these are '06s, others say '07s. Not sure.
  • 4rider4rider Member Posts: 96
    I currently have a 99 suburban and thinkng may be getting a 2005 sub or seq. Can anyone who actully has owned both and tell me your overall feeling about them? Dealership test drive usually does not reflect the whole driving experience. If you have had both of them , which one of them will you buy again? My experience with my sub has been farily pleasntly and have not had any problem over 5 years. The only thing I dont like about the sub is that the chassis has much less and clean grand clearance than the seq. Also, chevy's resale value sucks.
  • oacoac Member Posts: 1,594
    I've never quite understood how and why GM makes the rear doors on their F/S SUV's (Tahoes, Yukons, Escallades, etc) so much more NARROWER than the front doors. And this doesn't appear to be changing in the cameo pics of the re-designs here.

    Anyone know why ??? Could it be a design artifact, for aestethics, or safety-related ???

    My Sequoia, like 99.99% of all SUV's, have all doors in almost similar sizes, except those from GM.... Perplexing ! Do owners not wish the doors were larger ? Just wondering.

    Happy Turkey Day everyone....
  • z71billz71bill Member Posts: 1,986
    IMO the size of the rear doors would be - way down on the bottom of my list of important things to consider. I have owned a Tahoe for more that 7 years and have never even noticed this "flaw" -
  • cruisinalongcruisinalong Member Posts: 1
    We own a Toyota Highlander and a Sanoma pickup... both great cars. I purchased my (first) Z71 Suburban '04 to accommodate a growing family and never really considered the Seq because of it's smaller size. The Suburban, for 6000 miles so far, has been a great car (sorry, I don't call these things trucks since they ARE cars to me)... no problems and quite a nice drive... rear wheel drive is a first for me in a long time. There are many small things which annoy me about the Chevy... most of which have been cited in these forums--but I still enjoy driving the beast without any problems. I'm sure the Toyota is a fine vehicle and I will probably get one to replace our Highlander. In my final analysis, I must remember that, after all, it's JUST a car! Have fun in either!
  • dolphin0dolphin0 Member Posts: 1
    I have a 1995 1500 Suburban. The transmission broke down at around 114k. I had the transmission rebuilt. It took another 30k until it broke down again.

     

    I love the room and power that the suburban have. But are the newer model suburbans have the capability of surpassing the 100k mark without any mayor problem?

     

    Would it be better to get a 2500 model in order to get the same performance and maybe longer life span?

     

    You input would greatly be appreciated.
  • mm1923mm1923 Member Posts: 1
    I am buying a truck for my wife. She likes the Suburban and recently the Sequoia has popped up on our radar. I have looked at the reviews on MSN Auto and the reviews from the professionals were better on the Suburban than the Sequoia. For me the reviews don't matter as much I come from a Toyota family. I KNOW the reliability is their claim to fame. However the Suburban is a vehicle that we love. But the warranty on a used Sequoia can get me up to 100,000 miles. The Suburban does not. I know at some point I will have to be in the shop. My wifes Corolla was bought with 43,000 miles and now is at 120,000 and we have not had any major problems. My Nissan has had few problems also. Should I get the Sequoia or the Suburban. I need objective feedback pleas.
  • oacoac Member Posts: 1,594
    On a forum such as Edmunds ? The best objective feedback I have seen around here is this:

     

    Buy what you LIKE !

     

    If its the 'Burb, go for it. If the Seq appeals to you bcos of its Toyota heritage, then go for it as well. You do not want to buy one and look longingly at the other choice every time you drive past one.

     

    Maybe more importantly, what does the WIFE want ?

     

    Good luck !
  • z71billz71bill Member Posts: 1,986
    I faced the same decision back in 2001 -

    Could not decide between Tahoe - Suburban - Sequoia. At first it seemed like the Suburban was a little too big - the Tahoe was a little too small and the Sequoia was just right.

    We test drove each a few times and cut the choice down to Tahoe VS Sequoia. The pricing difference pushed me to the Tahoe.

    I can't recall the exact difference - but it was well over $5K - the Sequoia was new and I could not get any dealer to give me any significant discount.

    If you really like both - I would work with both dealerships - see what the best deal you can get on each truck - then ask yourself - is this truck worth $XXX more?

    If the price would have been the same (or close)I would most likely be driving a Sequoia - but no way did I see a $5K difference - new model or not.
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    That is where the value of the Sub/Tahoe kicks in. I have recently been looking at used burbs & Seq's, and the Sequ's go for a ton more $$ used. I couldn't justify the difference. I ended up finding a 2000 burb LS 4x4 w/46K for 17k. It's older than I wanted, but it is very clean and I couldn't justify paying atleast $7k more for an 03 with the same amount of miles. The used Seq's are hard to find with low miles, and when I did find one the prices were to high for me to justify.
  • deaconlewdeaconlew Member Posts: 2
    I bought a 99 K1500 (4x4) Suburban in December of 2003. I am the second owner. At the time of purchase it had 208K miles. I changed all the fluids, immediately, replaced the tires and had the fuel system cleansed. I have put 51K more miles on it and had to replace the tranny. Purchased from and installed by a GM dealership. There are over 260K miles on it today. Runs like a top. Early January last year went to southern California (I live in Texas) and pull a 26' trailor loaded (helped a friend move) back to Texas. Other than the tranny (which is to be expected) I have not had major problems. All the issues that I have had I can associate with the milage of the vehicle. To date the items that have been replaced since I have owned it are:
    Power Steering Pump
    Fuel Pump
    Intake Gasket
    Transmission
    Exhaust (this was not necessary, but the glass packs sure do sound good)

    My two pence. The Suburban is my kind of vehicle, would not own a Toyota at all (unless it was given to me).

    -DeaconLew :)

    99 K1500 Suburban Red (Like the blood of Jesus)
    350, K&N, Dual Exhaust w/ Glass Packs
    Husband and father of five
  • chevymanchevyman Member Posts: 1
    Not only having GM qualitly and reliablility, the Suburban has so much more room and power than the Sequoia. I love my 1998 GMC 4x4 Suburban. My suburban has 98,000 miles and I have never had to replace anything, EVER! Obviously everything but oil and tires. I also tow my 30ft. travel trailer that weight 6500 lbs. dry with ease! :shades: No struggles, I would love to see a Sequoia do that! But it couldn't ;) . The Suburban is the perfect large SUV. :blush:
  • edwin10edwin10 Member Posts: 32
    Interesting reading this Sequoia vs Tahoe forum. Suburban is much bigger and
    should be left out. Gas much higher now, and both Seq and Tahoe are now
    heavily discounted.

    I purchaed a 2002 sub, and my friend purchased a 2002 seq limited. I have
    had to pick my friend up at the Toyota dealer 4 times so far, and he has never
    had to get me. My sub has not broken yet.

    The seq has been recalled twice now, and just this year Toyota has had
    to recall 2.6 million vehicles, just recently the hybrid car.

    So in my opinion both are very close in equality, get the best deal, and buy
    the best deal, because as soon as you drive it off the dealer lot, you just
    lost at least 10 grand $$$.
  • nrsmdnrsmd Member Posts: 4
    Help!

    Even the Chevy dealer can't give me the answer.

    While installing a brake controller for my RV, I LOST the nut that goes to the fuse box inside the engine compartment, and can't find a replacement.

    On the fuse box in the engine compartment, (facing the steering wheel), there are two power poles standing straight up and a bolt that shoots out to the fender (parallel to the ground) where lots of red wires are connected. The nut that tightens on to that bolt that shoots out from the fuse box toward the fender (parallel to the ground) got lost, and the Chevy dealer has no idea what size or replacement I would get.

    Right now, I have the cables (which when not connected the car will not start) pressed against the bolt, so the car works, but this is dangerous -- if the connection comes loose the car will die!

    All I need is the actual size of the nut that turns on to this bolt and perhaps where I can find it.

    It is uncanny that a single 1 penny nut is causing so much problem!

    Thanks in advance.

    Nathan
  • snoopy31snoopy31 Member Posts: 3
    I find it hard to believe that your dealer, or one of their mechanics, can't tell you the size of the nut. Any good garage mechanic should have a "Thread Gauge"(Sears sells them and they aren't expensive. I keep one in my tool box). A thread gauge will tell you the type of thread on the bolt whether it be standard or metric. Once you know the thread size then measure the diameter of the bolt. Together it should tell you the size of the nut plus the thread size, ie: 1/4-20, as an example of a common type nut. Talk to a good auto mechanic they should be able to tell you the exact size. Hope this helps.
  • tomk4tomk4 Member Posts: 1
    Chevy/GMC have the muscle in terms of towing capacity, but in terms of the 5000-6000 pound load, how does the Sequoia, rated at a 6200 pound capacity, handle it? OR, should someone not even REALLY think about towing this kind of load with a Sequoia and just go with the Chevy/GMC?
  • candirancandiran Member Posts: 1
    I am trying to get the most for my $$$. I have a family of 5 boys ( one of them I'm married to ) and we already have 2 trucks. The latest being a Chevy Silverado HD Duramax etc. I am currently in a KIA mini van and want to trade for an SUV. Have been looking at the SEQ but kind of pricey. Don't do any towing but do live in the mountains of Montana and boys in family do a lot of hunting so for me to go where they are I need a4x4. Husband tends to think trailblazers and such are to small, but I like the 6 cyl for the gas economy.

    Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
  • ggesqggesq Member Posts: 701
    Just a couple of things for you to consider:

    2006 Tahoe is a brand new model with new exterior/interior styling; more engine configurations with a hybrid coming out soon.
    2006 Tundra was just introduced at I believe the Chicago auto show so the "new" model Sequoia would be following not too long after the Tundra starts rolling off the assembly line. Of course, the Tundra/Sequoia is completely redesigned with a new engine as well. Toyota is talking about a hybrid for the Tundra/Sequoia.
    I guess the relevant question would be; what is your time frame for purchasing/leasing?
    Additionally, Toyota will have a higher resale value even though it is more "pricey."

    BTW, just for reference, I owned a Tahoe (2000) before buying an 04' Sequoia. Gotta love the power in the Chevy but after 60k miles and it starting to have problems I got rid of it quick and bought the Toyota. Got about 30k on the Toyo and so far it is flawless.
    Hope this helps. ;)
  • jsnoopyjsnoopy Member Posts: 2
    :mad: In August of 2005 I traded a 2003 Suburban LT on a 2005 Toyota Sequoia Limited. BIG MISTAKE!!! I have been having many problems with the Sequoia and have had it back to the dealer twice. Now it will be going back a third time for problems not solved in the first two trips and all this in only 4,100 miles. My Burb only had 11,000 care free miles on it and I only had to take it back to the dealer for a recall on the second row seat belt. They fixed the problem in less than an hour and I was on my way. The #1 and only reason I went with the Sequoia was because of the so called Toyota Reliability Factor! I can assure you my Sequoia certainly does not live up to Toyota's so called RELIABILITY????. RELIABILITY???? give me a break!!
    The new 2007 Suburbans are coming to the dealers around April or May and I can tell you I WILL be going back to the SUBURBAN. My take on the Sequoia is that it is HIGHLY OVERRATED AND HIGHLY OVER PRICED. No wonder the Sequoia is said to have a higher trade in value. It's OVER PRICED to begin with. My 03 Burb had many,many, more bells and whistles for much less money($3000 less MSRP) than my Sequoia has. My advice is go for the all new 2007 Suburban as that is exactly what I am going to do. I have owned my first and last Toyota guaranteed! For me its Suburban all the way. After all the Suburban was the first and is the Granddaddy of all the SUVs, as we know them, today. Take notice as to what the U.S. Government is using....Suburbans!!
  • tdohtdoh Member Posts: 298
    If "2006 Tahoe is a brand new model...", as you put it...what does that make the '07 Tahoe--a brand-newer model? ;)
  • ggesqggesq Member Posts: 701
    Oops, looks like I misspoke. Yes, you are correct, I meant the 07 as being a brand new model. ;)
  • jck1jck1 Member Posts: 3
    I tried the Expedition, Sequoia, Armada, Tahoe & Suburban. In truth, the Sienna had more passenger room than all but the Suburban. My wife and I have 4 boys, a girl and 115 yellow lab. The Suburban was the clear choice. It also makes me feel better knowing that my most presious cargo is in such a safe vehicle.
  • dietrichdietrich Member Posts: 3
    Just got done towing a 5000# dry (probably 5800# loaded) travel trailer from Denver to Steamboat Lake with a 93 SR5 Sequoia. Handled great over Eisenhower tunnel and Rabbit Ears pass (did get down to 35 mph over Rabbit Ears). Gas mileage did drop as low as 4 mph for a time, but made it all the way back on one tank and 3 hours drive time! I was very concerned about towing that kind of weight but did clear it with the TRD guru at a local dealer. Guarantee I was over the GVWR of 11,800 ( I'd have to pull the seats and drive naked not to).
    The key is to get a good hitch set up and dial in the trailer breaks (recommend cam anti-sway control and load equalizer bars). Temps were in the 90's pulling extended grades of 6% at altitude and never had the temp budge. I know alot of people will argue to NEVER exceed weight limits. I am very conservative and never felt overloaded, unsafe or white knuckled. I guess I don't necessarily buy into attorney and lawsuit driven national paranoia of guard rails everywhere and coffee labeled hot.
  • ggesqggesq Member Posts: 701
    "My take on the Sequoia is that it is HIGHLY OVERRATED AND HIGHLY OVER PRICED. No wonder the Sequoia is said to have a higher trade in value. It's OVER PRICED to begin with."

    Having owned a Tahoe and now a Sequoia I thought you might be interested to know that according to Edmunds TMV pricing-

    2007 Burb LT 1500 4WD w/ LTZ package & Navigation is $48,267.

    2006 Sequoia Limited 4WD w/ Navi is $40,700.

    And you were saying? Almost 8K more and in a couple of years the Sequoia will still have a higher resale than the Chevy. Heck, it will most likely outlast it too.

    "Take notice as to what the U.S. Government is using....Suburbans!!"
    Yes, they are cheap and expendable. :P
This discussion has been closed.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles